Biennials, Biennials Everywhere

Architecture or art biennials; or more appropriately addressed as Biennale, have taken over a scene that is now hungry and desperate to be told what is in and what is not. They now seem to be tools for the corporate sponsorship bandwagon to be more ironic and to provide access to the masses via social networks. And they also illustrate and serve as a mechanism to make evident a city or a region’s desperate attempt to become a hip touristy place. Have these Biennales lost what made them interesting? Are they even worth the try for their hosting cities and institutions?
Since I dwell on the real or architecture, urbanism, landscape architecture, and the built environment, I will mostly direct and target my “two cents” to events dealing with those subjects and whose primary objective is to serve as a mediatic vehicle to the above-mentioned disciplines. I must also inform you that not all Biennales are as lame and meaningless as I claim them to be, some have established the bar so high that is making the rest of them so irrelevant and futile that they actually have inspired oneself to write on them. Thus, no names will be mentioned.
Biennials are spreading quickly in our discipline. They seem to pop out every time there is something seemingly interesting to show or to talk about. Some of these events are actually highly specific in their reach. They deal with a very clear and specific subject and do very well in extracting all they can of a particular subject or theme of their interest that has been previously selected and normally mentioned in the event’s name. They are meant to enlighten a public into what are the conditions of the built environment along with its crafts (architecture, landscape, urbanism, etc.). Or are they?
Biennales as a tool to market corporations. Corporations have interests that steer their agendas, that is nothing new. Problems arise when such corporations shape the content of the biennale. Many biennales; at least the ones that are worth having, can ironically take a turn in the subject it is meant to address for it might be against the mission statement of one of these multinationals Or worst, in the hands of a local business!
The firm led by Eyal Weizman; Forensic Architecture, recently withdraw from the Whitney Biennial to take place in the said institution's museum in New York. The reason behind it was that the firm believed that the values and principles they stand for were in direct conflict with those of the businesses of one of the Board Members of the museum. Long story short, Forensic Architecture; a firm not strange to difficult to swallow topics, decided to withdraw from the exhibition. This reveals not only the irony of the event, for they had invited a guest that has probably been affected by the business of the museum’s board member, but it may be an indicator of the careless approach some of these events have when selecting themes (or the lack of one) for their artistic narratives. The theme then shall not be important and will not be carefully chosen since the attention to the event is more important.
Regardless of this comical case, other biennales seem to just be purposely funny since the sponsor roster is usually contradicting. For one event one may encounter an oil company sponsoring an event on sustainability and alternative energy sources. In another, a plaster-making business may be only willing to feature those projects or designs where their products are being used in the correct manner, not even giving a chance for those that may be using their product in a more challenging and creative way (after all, they are not in the business of arts & crafts, and would never profit from researching new markets for their products). Last but not least, a chair-making factory allowing their clients to show off their office spaces to the world, even though they are generic, poorly design, and offer nothing of value to the world of architecture. However, they feature their products and that is what counts. To hell with quality!
Biennales as a tool for local tourism. Many governments or institutions seem to have found a new tool to fight a recently identified problem, lack of tourism. Many cities around the globe are realizing the potential of a tourism-based economy and of course, are happy to jump to the bandwagon of a seemingly clever investment. Who can blame them? Some of these places are dull, boring, or maybe interesting but with little means to attract the general public’s attention.
Although these well-intentioned endeavors often work in favor of the local economy they may lack content and work against it in terms of legacy. Imagine a place where a Biennale has been established as the event to attract tourism for there is a need to counteract the lack of public funds. Most certainly such an event will lack content for most of the planning will focus on the financial profit and not necessarily on the content. Not to mention that institutions know that content is important and to comply with an ever-demanding market they must come up with something good every two years, or else the money-making event shall end in shame, mystery, and bankruptcy. Such possibilities might be making some of these “biennales” more of a one-time-only event. Leaving not any actual intellectual, artistical, or economical legacy to the cities and towns that envisioned them in the first place, and therefore a major waste of time.
Biennales for the Status Quo. Unlike institutions that have nourished themselves in a concept of constant artistical and intellectual debate, many biennales now seem to offer no actual critique nor curatorial approach to the material being exhibited in their walls or pavilions. Some of these architectural events focus their attention on showing the work of their friends, colleagues, and even those who might profit or benefit from exhibiting some of their work in lieu of a cheap and quickly assembled event. The opportunity to inquire and be critical on a specific subject is then left alone and the judgment-free zone opens its gates to mediocre work.
It is absolutely disappointing to find that there are biennials and like-minded events that prefer such positions arguing their wish not to leave anyone out. This kind of thinking opens the gate not only to poor quality work but might become redundant since social media (and even some good media) is already dealing with such topics since many major architectural publications are clearly preferring to show what is currently going on in the architecture & built environment world and are in no position of having a curatorial or editorial mind for it truly might ignore somethings they wish to speak about.
But biennials are not major publications. They do not exist to serve as a showcase of architecture's current affairs. Biennials are meant to have a position! Much like madame Phillis Lambert established when creating the CCA (Canadian Centre for Architecture) and I paraphrase; they rather not say what architecture is but rather question all the given notions it may have and what it can become. A position like madame Lambert’s seems far more attractive, exciting, intellectual and worthy of our time. Those biennials “enlightening” their audience with whatever is being currently done in whatever place they are from in the disciplines of architecture and the built environment are dangerous and poor investments.
Organizations supporting or sponsoring them must realize the damage they are producing to the local artistic circles since they most likely will be showing off work done by the rich for the 1%. An event that celebrates such unequal conditions in any given urban area should be ashamed for they are revealing not only how aristocratic they are but also how unequal architecture and city-building can get. Is it wrong then if those are the conditions of your local environment? Certainly yes! Events like this should invite, unite, and work towards more equal societies.
These few issues I have written about are but the tip of the iceberg on biennials that pop up now in every corner. Now more of a fashion statement themselves, biennials not always do things wrong. There is still a large number of events where things are done properly. Those are the ones that endure the test of time and those that become subject to larger research because the topics they deal with; and how they deal with them, is of interest not only to a wealthy few but are of everyone’s concern and curiosity. They are few, and we will talk about them 40 years after. They help shape our discipline by pointing out what is being done correctly and by suggesting what needs to change.